Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[TamarYaelBatYah]

And "Elohim is the wisest" should be "Elohim ARE the wisest". The -im makes it plural, remember? Like goy and goyim.

שׁמעHear,H3478ישׂראלO Israel:H3068יהוהThe LORDH430אלהינוYour ElohimH3068יהוהLORD:H259אחד׃one

Elohim is Echad. Echad is a Hebrew number meaning "one". Elohim is a dual union of male-female. It is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. We actually do not have a word in English to convey the concept.

It would not be Elohim "are" because I am referring specifically to the Most High. Are would be used with lowercase elohim.

The false elohim of the world are idols.

It's kind of amazing. You really don't even understand half of what anyone says to you, do you? Yet you keep telling yourself that you do understand, even though it's obvious that you don't. It's really kind of amazing.

You seek to attack my understanding simply because I don't hold popular opinions

Worldview isn't referring to what cultures you've been exposed to. If we go by the meaning that everyone else uses, it's more like the lens through which you view reality.

Firstly, I'll say WELL DONE in trying to define a word by explanation rather than just cut and paste from the dictionary

So much black and white thinking. An inability to adapt, grow or learn. I don't see how medication could ever help someone like you, you're beyond the ministrations of pharmacopeia.

You assume that there is something wrong with my thinking because you are estranged from The Torah

The Torah was written during 42000BCE by YHWH and Yeshuah after they got bored and wanted to start publishing books, you have no sources to say I am wrong so that means I'm right

Science is not the only way of knowing something. Over reliance on science is the folly of modern society.

Do you think Socrates and Plato sat around asking people to cite their sources?

There are other ways of knowing: logic, reason, and spiritual powers.

Except for the parts where it says: bats are birds, whales are fish, rabbits chew their cud, and pigs are unclean. Gee I just pointed out 4 flaws off the top of my head. That's without taking genesis literally. If you do then the whole book is a flaw.

I'm not surprised that YOU of all people would think you are wiser than Elohim

The Torah was compiled and translated by human people, who do have flaws. The Torah was written for a civilization that no longer exists, in political and natural climates that are wildly different than the modern day.

That's moral relativism, precisely how you Christians view the world. This is why your religion feeds off of narcissism, codependency and sin.

The Messiah taught basic mercies which you seem to be incapable of understanding to coexist alongside the Torah, but I wouldn't really expect anything less from somebody who thinks the Messiah was a separate entity from Elohim.

Trinity theology aside, you're making a claim about what The Messiah taught regarding Mercy. Can you prove your claim though?

The Torah clearly says that no one can forgive another person's sin except Elohim. So why would The Messiah teach anything different than that?

Every scholar/historian agrees that Torah is written in 6BC, few years after the Bible, and thousand years after Babylonian code.

You err in saying "every scholar". I've met other people who believe that The Torah existed before Adam and Chavah were born.

But again, I'm not talking about the actual physical extant copy of The Torah that humans have. I'm talking about The Torah as a concept, and the copy of The Torah that sits in the Heavens. It's still sitting there, and has been since before Adam and Chavah were created.

Yes, the actual physical copies of the Samaritan Torah that we have, and the Masoretic Text are not 5,780+/- years old. They are relatively young copies. But that's not when The Torah was first written. Those are copies.

I'm not pointing it out to suggest it's wrong to be sleep deprived, instead so everyone can keep in mind the long term side effects of long term sleep deprivation.

Lol, OK


I know what you're hinting out without saying it

Your acceptance of what you call "the Torah" is your own personal opinion, Mel. That's the point.

The Samaritans and Rabbinical Judaism says The Torah is 5 books.

I agree with those 5 book being included but I also believe there are missing books written before Deuteronomy that have to be considered.

Melinda’s breastfeeding fixation is getting seriously out of control.

Like, we get it. We are aware that you are a mammal and milk comes out of the bodies of female mammals. Things that come out of human bodies also include sweat, shed skin, shed hair, various excess oils, nasal mucus, menstrual fluid, semen, smegma, pus, vomit, piss, shit, and ideas for new video games. Nobody talks publicly about any of these secretions, emissions, or discharges because they are disgusting human byproducts, there is nothing unique about them, and they are nothing to be proud of. You were granted permission to breastfeed during a hearing for the same reason you would be granted permission to shit during a hearing, if biological circumstances necessitated it.

You are as much a matriarch as is a sow.

Seriously? You tried to compare breast milk to shit. Not even close.

The body has different discharges, but breast milk is not a foul discharge. The breast is a unique beautiful creation of the female body. Don't be jealous that you don't have any and can't nourish human life. Embrace the ta-tas. Have you ever tried breast milk from your lover? You may want to try it some time.

Semen and sweet vaginal secretions that come from female orgasm aren't foul either. From where did you derive your concept that the body and sex is "dirty"? Were you raised Catholic or Christian?

There's nothing wrong with talking about semen, breast milk, vaginal orgasms and the like publicly. These are all scientific terms. If talking about sex publicly - in the context of moral philosophy and religious debate - makes you blush, you may want to consider seeing a sex therapist.

 

[LoverofPi]

שׁמעHear,H3478ישׂראלO Israel:H3068יהוהThe LORDH430אלהינוYour ElohimH3068יהוהLORD:H259אחד׃one

Elohim is Echad. Echad is a Hebrew number meaning "one". Elohim is a dual union of male-female. It is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. We actually do not have a word in English to convey the concept.

Elohim was an entire pantheon, Mel. Also we do have words in english to describe the concept, it's very similar to the concept of the trinity.

It would not be Elohim "are" because I am referring specifically to the Most High. Are would be used with lowercase elohim.

Elohim is a name, not a title. Then again, maybe we should lowercase your name, mel.

The false elohim of the world are idols.

Yet another instance of your trying to sound special making you sound silly.

You seek to attack my understanding simply because I don't hold popular opinions

No, we point out your terribly understanding because you legit don't understand a lot of the stuff you react to and say. You misuse words all the time, for starters. The whole Elohim thing for another, Spiritual Matter and Viruses for another, Young Earth Creationism, I can go on.

You assume that there is something wrong with my thinking because you are estranged from The Torah

We think there is something wrong with your thinking because there is something wrong with your thinking. The Torah is just an object for you to shield yourself from criticism.

Science is not the only way of knowing something. Over reliance on science is the folly of modern society.

Science is a methodology, Mel. And it's a methodology that produces reliable results.

Do you think Socrates and Plato sat around asking people to cite their sources?

Yes, they were both sticklers for getting people to explain their logic and loved to point out absurdities in the logic of others.

There are other ways of knowing: logic, reason, and spiritual powers.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is Woo.

I'm not surprised that YOU of all people would think you are wiser than Elohim

We reject the existence of your god, Mel. You reject the existence of everyone else's. Why does it somehow come as a surprise when they do the same to you?

That's moral relativism, precisely how you Christians view the world. This is why your religion feeds off of narcissism, codependency and sin.

You really just have a bug up your butt against Christians, don't you. Several sects reject moral relativism. Most jews understand and accept moral relativism.

Trinity theology aside, you're making a claim about what The Messiah taught regarding Mercy. Can you prove your claim though?

Yes, but you keep refusing to read plain text as plain text.

The Torah clearly says that no one can forgive another person's sin except Elohim. So why would The Messiah teach anything different than that?

Because the Messiah was telling everyone that the rules were changed. That to forgive others was to gain YHWH's forgiveness. To be kind to others, even one's enemies, was the way to receiving kindness from YHWH.

Are you familiar with the Gnostics, Mel?

You err in saying "every scholar". I've met other people who believe that The Torah existed before Adam and Chavah were born.

Dollars to donuts no one would consider them scholars either.

But again, I'm not talking about the actual physical extant copy of The Torah that humans have. I'm talking about The Torah as a concept, and the copy of The Torah that sits in the Heavens. It's still sitting there, and has been since before Adam and Chavah were created.

Yes, the actual physical copies of the Samaritan Torah that we have, and the Masoretic Text are not 5,780+/- years old. They are relatively young copies. But that's not when The Torah was first written. Those are copies.

Or as I said before, she believes the Torah existed before humanity because she believes the Torah existed before humanity.

Lol, OK


I know what you're hinting out without saying it

Do you now? Go on, give it a whack. Not like I was trying hard to keep it secret.

The Samaritans and Rabbinical Judaism says The Torah is 5 books.

I agree with those 5 book being included but I also believe there are missing books written before Deuteronomy that have to be considered.

Thank you for proving what I was just saying, yes. You have decided on your own what you consider to be "the Torah" same as you get angry at other people for doing.

Seriously? You tried to compare breast milk to shit. Not even close.

The body has different discharges, but breast milk is not a foul discharge. The breast is a unique beautiful creation of the female body. Don't be jealous that you don't have any and can't nourish human life. Embrace the ta-tas. Have you ever tried breast milk from your lover? You may want to try it some time.

Semen and sweet vaginal secretions that come from female orgasm aren't foul either. From where did you derive your concept that the body and sex is "dirty"? Were you raised Catholic or Christian?

There's nothing wrong with talking about semen, breast milk, vaginal orgasms and the like publicly. These are all scientific terms. If talking about sex publicly - in the context of moral philosophy and religious debate - makes you blush, you may want to consider seeing a sex therapist.

You're not talking about them in the context of moral philosophy or religious debate, though. You're bringing them up over and over and over, and I say that as someone who's not squeamish at all about bodily fluids and how you misunderstand how they work.

 

[White Baby]

Trinity theology aside, you're making a claim about what The Messiah taught regarding Mercy. Can you prove your claim though?

The Torah clearly says that no one can forgive another person's sin except Elohim. So why would The Messiah teach anything different than that?

Trinity theology notwithstanding because I'm not dumb enough to believe that nonsense, you're welcome to read the NT for yourself. Although considering that you insist the Messiah never condemned adultery against all logic and reason, I dread to think of how you might twist His words more if you really sat down and had a gander at the gospels.

 

[Deadpool]

שׁמעHear,H3478ישׂראלO Israel:H3068יהוהThe LORDH430אלהינוYour ElohimH3068יהוהLORD:H259אחד׃one

Elohim is Echad. Echad is a Hebrew number meaning "one". Elohim is a dual union of male-female. It is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. We actually do not have a word in English to convey the concept.

It would not be Elohim "are" because I am referring specifically to the Most High. Are would be used with lowercase elohim.

The false elohim of the world are idols.




You seek to attack my understanding simply because I don't hold popular opinions




Firstly, I'll say WELL DONE in trying to define a word by explanation rather than just cut and paste from the dictionary




You assume that there is something wrong with my thinking because you are estranged from The Torah




Science is not the only way of knowing something. Over reliance on science is the folly of modern society.

Do you think Socrates and Plato sat around asking people to cite their sources?

There are other ways of knowing: logic, reason, and spiritual powers.





I'm not surprised that YOU of all people would think you are wiser than Elohim




That's moral relativism, precisely how you Christians view the world. This is why your religion feeds off of narcissism, codependency and sin.




Trinity theology aside, you're making a claim about what The Messiah taught regarding Mercy. Can you prove your claim though?

The Torah clearly says that no one can forgive another person's sin except Elohim. So why would The Messiah teach anything different than that?







You err in saying "every scholar". I've met other people who believe that The Torah existed before Adam and Chavah were born.

But again, I'm not talking about the actual physical extant copy of The Torah that humans have. I'm talking about The Torah as a concept, and the copy of The Torah that sits in the Heavens. It's still sitting there, and has been since before Adam and Chavah were created.

Yes, the actual physical copies of the Samaritan Torah that we have, and the Masoretic Text are not 5,780+/- years old. They are relatively young copies. But that's not when The Torah was first written. Those are copies.




Lol, OK


I know what you're hinting out without saying it





The Samaritans and Rabbinical Judaism says The Torah is 5 books.

I agree with those 5 book being included but I also believe there are missing books written before Deuteronomy that have to be considered.





Seriously? You tried to compare breast milk to shit. Not even close.

The body has different discharges, but breast milk is not a foul discharge. The breast is a unique beautiful creation of the female body. Don't be jealous that you don't have any and can't nourish human life. Embrace the ta-tas. Have you ever tried breast milk from your lover? You may want to try it some time.

Semen and sweet vaginal secretions that come from female orgasm aren't foul either. From where did you derive your concept that the body and sex is "dirty"? Were you raised Catholic or Christian?

There's nothing wrong with talking about semen, breast milk, vaginal orgasms and the like publicly. These are all scientific terms. If talking about sex publicly - in the context of moral philosophy and religious debate - makes you blush, you may want to consider seeing a sex therapist.

Too long and stupid. Didn't read, kill yourself whore.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

Science is not the only way of knowing something. Over reliance on science is the folly of modern society.

Do you think Socrates and Plato sat around asking people to cite their sources?

There are other ways of knowing: logic, reason, and spiritual powers.

Science isn't the only way, but it's the most logical, provable, and definitive form of proof. You can prove something with science, but not as well with religion.

No, I don't believe Socrates and Plato asked for sources, but why would a philosopher need sources? It's a retarded equivalency.

It's actually only the first two, spiritual power is only reasoning for the delerious.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Yes, they were both sticklers for getting people to explain their logic and loved to point out absurdities in the logic of others.

You'd think this "great scholar" would know that places like Pnyx existed. Also, does she know Plato was Socrates student and that they had debates?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Don't lecture Melinda, she speaks Japanese. I'm sure that claim is just as true as the rest of her claims.

Obviously she knows everything and is never wrong, guys.

You seek to attack my understanding simply because I don't hold popular opinions

No, it's because you are constantly blatantly wrong, as we have all proved. And you, almost, never source anything, and when you do, it's either your own works(possible lacks of quality/conflict of interest, etc), or you just misunderstand what you cite(See, for example, your porn = More Narccism claim.

You assume that there is something wrong with my thinking because you are estranged from The Torah

No. We see that there is something wrong with your thinking because the world is not black and white. Moving outside of ethics, it's shades of gray in law too.

Science is not the only way of knowing something. Over reliance on science is the folly of modern society.

That's why we have different fields for different knowledge. Have you heard of History, Geography, Philosophy, Biology, Medicine, Archeology, etc? All fields that show us knowledge. Some are, in ways, impacted by science, some more, some less.

And, no, it's not our folly. It enlightened us. Science is why we can communicate with one another over the internet as we do

Do you think Socrates and Plato sat around asking people to cite their sources?

You do realise that they are philosophers? Their job is to try to come up with any reason to explain something, however illogical, or logical, it may be. Their job was never to prove something without bias. Plato, for example, was full of bias in his creation of the Myth of the Metals.

Also, yes, for example, Socrates when reviewing other philosophers works used to look at their sources.

Addendum: Plato founded a school, as did Aristotle. Since they thought, they very likely did use sources, and since it practiced skepticism(Plato's), they had to review sources to criticize them.

I'm not surprised that YOU of all people would think you are wiser than Elohi

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck....

This is why your religion feeds off of narcissism, codependency and sin.

Sources, please?

Can you prove your claim though?

Can you prove any of yours?

You err in saying "every scholar". I've met other people who believe that The Torah existed before Adam and Chavah were born

hyperbole

1. a way of speaking or writing that makes someone or something sound bigger…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Yes, there are always morons, Mel. Every compatent Scholar, Historian, etc, that I have seen, says it was written 6BC.

Actually, lets do something else. Show me people who say your version is right. For truth of my version you can click on any link when you Google "Torah History". They all agree. The top articles are heavily sourced as well, IIRC

But again, I'm not talking about the actual physical extant copy of The Torah that humans have. I'm talking about The Torah as a concept, and the copy of The Torah that sits in the Heavens. It's still sitting there, and has been since before Adam and Chavah were created.

Yes, the actual physical copies of the Samaritan Torah that we have, and the Masoretic Text are not 5,780+/- years old. They are relatively young copies. But that's not when The Torah was first written. Those are copies.

"I'm not talking about written Torah! But I am talking about Written Torah"

Okay? Anyway, like others before me pointed out, this is heavily stupid. See, for example, this post.

And it's a methodology that produces reliable results

I mean, technically, it doesn't always do that. But, in general, good unbiased Science, provides good reliable results.

We reject the existence of your god, Mel. You reject the existence of everyone else's. Why does it somehow come as a surprise when they do the same to you?

For the same reason that Censor-tards don't think it can be used against them. Because they cannot even understand the idea that en masse censorship could be used to silence them, they who are definatly the good guys.

Dollars to donuts no one would consider them scholars either

Figure it's just her kids repeating what Mommy said?

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Actually, lets do something else. Show me people who say your version is right

This is the core of your folly right here

No, I don't believe Socrates and Plato asked for sources, but why would a philosopher need sources? It's a retarded equivalency

Philosophy is a way of knowing

Because the Messiah was telling everyone that the rules were changed. That to forgive others was to gain YHWH's forgiveness. To be kind to others, even one's enemies, was the way to receiving kindness from YHWH.

You made all that up in your head. It doesn't say that in The Gospels

And don't try to latch on to the name YHWH all of a sudden like you follow The Torah. Go back to using G-d like you have been. You're a Christian, quit trying to mimic Messianics and Netzarim

 

[Spergichu]

This is the core of your folly right here

So you can't find anyone who agrees with you then?

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

quit trying to mimic Messianics and Netzarim

Quit pretending to Jewish.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

So you can't find anyone who agrees with you then?

That's not what I said.

Quit pretending to Jewish.

Quit trying to pretend you know anything about Jewish culture just because you're married to a fake Jew

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Quit trying to pretend you know anything about Jewish culture just because you're married to a fake Jew

She doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah like you do Melinda. You're just jealous that not only can she call herself Jewish as in a religious manner, but also racially and culturally, unlike you who has to make up bullshit to pretend to be Jewish. Is there a reason why you hate other women Melinda? Do you hate yourself deep down? Do you loathe your pathetic existence and need to take it out on other women just to feel better about yourself?

 

[LoverofPi]

You made all that up in your head. It doesn't say that in The Gospels

It says it in plain text in the gospels, Mel.

And don't try to latch on to the name YHWH all of a sudden like you follow The Torah. Go back to using G-d like you have been. You're a Christian, quit trying to mimic Messianics and Netzarim

I'm not a Christian.

I am a pope, though!

And I will use the appropriate name for the god of the Levites as I please.

 

[Bloitzhole]

Science is not the only way of knowing something. Over reliance on science is the folly of modern society.

Do you think Socrates and Plato sat around asking people to cite their sources?

There are other ways of knowing: logic, reason, and spiritual powers.

It's actually only the first two, spiritual power is only reasoning for the delirious.

Socrates and presumably Plato still applied standards - testability was at the core of his principles and teachings.
Socrates' entire life centered around testing his contemporaries by rigid standards, which ultimately caused many to despise him for it.
He compared false deductions and the speaking of believes that could not withstand logical testing with birthing false idols. If an assertion could not hold up to testing by universal (and thus understandable by all, rather than an elect few) standards of logic, they were to be rejected - not knowing was to be much preferred over possible falsehoods.

although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.

One of the cornerstones of modern science is the falsification principle, similar in spirit to Socrates' approach, perhaps most exemplified in contemporary times by the late Karl Popper. If any hypothesis about reality does not provide the potential for proving it is false, then it is not worth considering in the first place - for it is better to have no explanation, than to simply believe one does. It has to be testable and have the potential to be rejected. Say one would assert that something happens on a plane that cannot be measured by universal means. This hypothesis is not worth considering, for if there are no instruments to test for it (to prove that the hypothesis is potentially false), it is not worth consideration in the first place. This is certainly in line with Socrates' thinking.

I think you are perhaps refering to "a priori" deductions - but those are usually not applied to complex subject matters, because one has to start from a universally agreed set of starting points. Language alone is a huge barrier.

An "a priori" deduction would be...

A scholar worth mentioning is one who has been cited by many of their peers in well regarded journals
Melinda has not been cited by many of her peers in well regarded journals

Thus Melinda is not a scholar worth mentioning.

You yourself will see the issue with applying a priori to more complex subject matters immediately in this case - for you will most likely not agree on the first condition, outlining what "makes" a scholar worth mentioning.

 

[Deadpool]

Quit trying to pretend you know anything about Jewish culture just because you're married to a fake Jew.

Quit pretending you know anything about anything. You're literally the dumbest person we discuss on the farms and quite possibly one of the dumbest people alive.

Then quit pretending to be Jewish. The only religion you can claim is the cult of Melinda, and it's based solely on what you want to believe combined with whatever you can cherry pick that ignores or reinforces your shitty behaviors. Anyone who talks to you for more than five minutes knows this about you.

 

[White Baby]

This is the core of your folly right here

I'd love to know what physical damage you sustained to your brain that makes you think this way.

Quit trying to pretend you know anything about Jewish culture just because you're married to a fake Jew

Just because every Jew you've met in real life has been too nice to call you insane to your face doesn't mean that Jews who do are fake.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Quit pretending you know anything about anything. You're literally the dumbest person we discuss on the farms and quite possibly one of the dumbest people alive.

Then quit pretending to be Jewish. The only religion you can claim is the cult of Melinda, and it's based solely on what you want to believe combined with whatever you can cherry pick that ignores or reinforces your shitty behaviors. Anyone who talks to you for more than five minutes knows this about you.

I used to think the dumbest person on the farms was Richard Watson, but he has schizophrenia as an excuse as to why he's stupid. This woman just plain stupid.

I'd love to know what physical damage you sustained to your brain that makes you think this way.

The years of abuse she thought was "love".

 

[Spergichu]

That's not what I said.

So why don't you cite anyone who shared your viewpoint about the Torah?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

This is the core of your folly right here

"Core of my folly" is asking for proof of your allegations? How can you even consider yourself an academic?

Philosophy is a way of knowing

Really? So, that makes the Myth of the Metals the correct way to rule? That makes the Theory of The Forms true? Oh, but what about Philosophers that contradict one another? Socrates, for example, did not believe in the Theory of the Forms. If Philosophy is to be a valid method of knowing, how can one thing be both true and false? Philosophy can allow you to, what amounts to, guess at the answers of life, but they are all proven by other sciences, such as, Biology.

Go back to using G-d

Why are you so afraid to spell God?

That's not what I said.

No, what you said was even worse.

It says it in plain text in the gospels, Mel.

Cite her. Just so we mock her when she doesn't listen.

So why don't you cite anyone who shared your viewpoint about the Torah?

Because, apparently, according to her "[proof] is [bad]"

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

So why don't you cite anyone who shared your viewpoint about the Torah?

Because popular view and peer consensus does not validate or invalidate anyone's view. Truth is not derived from more than one person in agreement, it is derived from logic, reason and facts.

Just because every Jew you've met in real life has been too nice to call you insane to your face doesn't mean that Jews who do are fake.

There is some truth to this statement. Academics will not tell you what they really think. But at least they have manners enough to put a filter on their mouth, not create lolcow threads

I'd love to know what physical damage you sustained to your brain that makes you think this way.

I probably have sustained some damage to my body and brain as a result of being in a relationship with Marshall. That's why I am working on healing after being narcissistically abused by Marshall for 4 fucking years straight. Marshall is a narc-hole. No amount of mercy, second chances, loyalty, faithfulness or love is going to get through to him. He lives in a bubble in his head.

This past year especially because instead of being a good husband and a good father he decided to leave me alone to take care of a 2 year old (think "terrible twos") and a small baby mostly every day by myself for 3+mo so he could work on a piece of shit car that he doesn't need. He is so utterly narcissistic that he could care less about my needs and what I need. He could care less that he has been sex starving me too. Everything is about him all the time. I'm so sick of it I could just box a punching bag for an hour straight and not get tired.

Overloading your wife with responsibility and leaving your wife to struggle with a small baby and a 2 year old every day is abuse. Flat out ABUSE. I'm not even going to make any excuses for him.

He recently told me on the phone he was "sorry" and he made a "big mistake" buying the car but it's just a hoover to try to get me sucked back into a relationship with him. I'm not falling for it. If he was really sorry he would have asked me to pick him up and drive him to my house so he could be a responsible husband and father. I cursed his car and he doesn't want to admit defeat because the POS is still mis-firing and over heating. YHWH sees.

If he would do this to me now, he would do it to me in the future and there is no way in hell I'm letting his semen anywhere near my legs to make another baby. He has ignored our 2 year old boy so much I feel so bad for the poor boy, my conscience cannot allow me to create another child with Marshall, that would be just cruel, all I see is another child being born in the world that he fails to take care of properly.

I'm done with babies and done with men and done with sex until menopause.

She doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah like you do Melinda. You're just jealous that not only can she call herself Jewish as in a religious manner, but also racially and culturally, unlike you who has to make up bullshit to pretend to be Jewish. Is there a reason why you hate other women Melinda? Do you hate yourself deep down? Do you loathe your pathetic existence and need to take it out on other women just to feel better about yourself?

These issues have already been discussed on the thread. Use the search feature and quit wasting everyone's time.

Socrates and presumably Plato still applied standards - testability was at the core of his principles and teachings.
Socrates' entire life centered around testing his contemporaries by rigid standards, which ultimately caused many to despise him for it.
He compared false deductions and the speaking of believes that could not withstand logical testing with birthing false idols. If an assertion could not hold up to testing by universal (and thus understandable by all, rather than an elect few) standards of logic, they were to be rejected - not knowing was to be much preferred over possible falsehoods.


One of the cornerstones of modern science is the falsification principle, similar in spirit to Socrates' approach, perhaps most exemplified in contemporary times by the late Karl Popper. If any hypothesis about reality does not provide the potential for proving it is false, then it is not worth considering in the first place - for it is better to have no explanation, than to simply believe one does. It has to be testable and have the potential to be rejected. Say one would assert that something happens on a plane that cannot be measured by universal means. This hypothesis is not worth considering, for if there are no instruments to test for it (to prove that the hypothesis is potentially false), it is not worth consideration in the first place. This is certainly in line with Socrates' thinking.

I think you are perhaps refering to "a priori" deductions - but those are usually not applied to complex subject matters, because one has to start from a universally agreed set of starting points. Language alone is a huge barrier.

An "a priori" deduction would be...

A scholar worth mentioning is one who has been cited by many of their peers in well regarded journals
Melinda has not been cited by many of her peers in well regarded journals

Thus Melinda is not a scholar worth mentioning.

You yourself will see the issue with applying a priori to more complex subject matters immediately in this case - for you will most likely not agree on the first condition, outlining what "makes" a scholar worth mentioning.

I've crossed over the concept of a priori in philosophy. I'd have to review it. I can't speak on the subject very well

I used to think the dumbest person on the farms was Richard Watson, but he has schizophrenia as an excuse as to why he's stupid. This woman just plain stupid.

As long as you put a woman at the bottom and a man above her, I'm sure your sick patriarchal mind is soothed just fine.